OpiumOpium History, 1940 To 1979War & Transition (1940-1947)During World War II, restrictions on shipping and strict port security produced a marked hiatus in global opium trafficking. In sum, the war cut the long-distance smuggling routes between Asia and the West, confining the drug traffic to regional markets. Denied illicit opiates from Asia, the United States drew limited supplies of low-grade heroin from Mexico that failed to meet even a fraction of consumer demand. By the end of the war, the US addict population had dropped to an historic low of some twenty thousand. In the Middle East, Turkey and Afghanistan continued to supply the large Iranian market without serious disruption. Similarly, China sustained its large addict population from domestic production, with considerable assistance from the Japanese occupation forces who were active participants in the heroin traffic. In Southeast Asia, however, local opium monopolies were cut off from their major source in India and were forced to expand domestic production to meet existing demand. Despite extensive opium consumption during the colonial era, Southeast Asia had remained a minor producer. In 1936, for example, the Shan States of Burma produced only 8 tons of raw opium, while Laos and northern Vietnam together produced 7.5 tons in 1940. Since India supplied their monopolies with low-cost opium, governments had no reason to encourage local cultivation. How then do we account for the marked increase in the Golden Triangle's opium production of 15.5 tons in 1940 to 3,050 tons in 1989? The Golden Triangle's rise as an illicit opium producer began slowly during World War II and then expanded rapidly in postwar decades. Cut off from sources in India and China by the war, the French Opium Monopoly reversed its policy of suppression and encouraged poppy cultivation among the colony's hill tribes, particularly the Hmong of Laos and Tonkin, raising Indochina's opium production from 7.4 tons in 1940 to 60.6 tons in 1944. This 800 percent increase in the local harvest was sufficient to maintain supplies for the colony's 100,000 plus addicts and allow a rise in drug revenues from 15 to 24 million piasters. During the war, moreover, Thailand annexed the Shan States of northeastern Burma and used its military occupation to supply Bangkok's monopoly with smoking opium. In May 1942, the Thai Northern Army marched into the Shan market town at Kengtung where Major General Phin Choonhawan, governor of what Bangkok now called the United Thai State, established a military administration. A few months later, the Thai Opium Monopoly imported 36 tons from the Shan States, raising opium revenues to a record level. At war's end, when Japanese forces began to suffer reverses on the Indian front, Bangkok ordered Governor Phin home from Kengtung and demobilized his Northern Army. Although this operation was a minor footnote to the war's main battles, some of the political links that would later bind these disparate highlands into the Golden Triangle opium zone were forged during the Thai occupation. Significantly, after World War II many of the key Thai military who dominated the country's politics and controlled the opium traffic with Burma were veterans of Shan State occupation. Increase/decrease in World Opium Production: --There is no accurate data of any description on world opium production for this period. Changes in Opium Cultivation by Region: --In Burma, opium production increased from 8 tons in 1936 to an approximate 36 tons in 1942. --In French Indochina (Laos and North Vietnam), opium production increased from 7.4 tons in 1940 to 60.6 tons in 1944. --Mexico experienced some increase in opium production in response to demand from the United States. Changes in Quantity of Opium Consumption by Region: --In the United States, the number of heroin addicts decreased from an estimated 200,000 in 1924 to just 20,000 in 1944-45. Summary and Analysis of Trends within Epoch: Developments in the drug trade during World War II show, as China would after the war, that perfect coercion can have an influence, direct and dramatic, on the international heroin trade. Massive wartime security over ports, impossible in peacetime, meant an end of drug smuggling to the United States. By implication, less than perfect coercion will little impact on the global narcotics traffic and will, under most circumstances, produce minor seizures that will serve as a surcharge that will be passed on to consumers. Cold War Opium Expansion (1948-1972)The forty years of the Cold War brought major changes to the world's illicit opium traffic. The Communist victory in China eliminated the world's major opium market within a decade, and simultaneously forced remnants of the old Nationalist regime into margins of Southeast Asia where they played a catalytic role in expanding that region's drug traffic. Although the Asian opium zone contracted geographically, Cold War geo-politics, combined with illicit market forces, stimulated a steady increase in opium production in the remaining area, which now stretched from Turkey to Thailand. Supplied by the Asian zone, other markets expanded their consumption of opiates steadily during this period. With morphine base from Turkey, the Corsican syndicate laboratories of Marseilles, the so-called French connection, processed an estimated 80 percent of the high-grade No. 4 heroin consumed in the US from 1948 to 1973, nearly a quarter century. Similarly, Turkey and Afghanistan produced smoking opium for the near insatiable demand among the million plus opium smokers of Iran, which became, after the Chinese revolution, the world's leading opium consumer. After 1949, the Chinese Communist regime used a mix of unrestrained repression and social reform to eradicate the world's largest opium market. By the mid 1950s, highland opium areas had converted to new crops, dealers had been executed, and the country's estimated 10 million addicts has been forced into compulsory treatment. The collapse of the Nationalist Chinese regime in 1949 forced its remnants into the drug markets of Hong Kong and Southeast Asia where they soon played a catalytic role in an expansion of opium production. In 1949, Shanghai's narcotics syndicate fled to Hong Kong where they soon opened heroin refineries. Suffering reverses in a struggle for control of the colony's heroin trade against local syndicates, Green Gang faded by the mid 1950s and was replaced by small syndicates of ethnic Chiu Chau criminals who traced their origins to nearby Swatow on China's south coast. Using the Green Gang's chemists, these new narcotic networks expanded the colony's heroin consumption during the 1950s and then extended their operations into Southeast Asia in the 1960s. Significantly, Hong Kong syndicate chemists opened the first No. 4 heroin laboratories along the Thai-Burma border in the late 1960s, introducing the technology that made the Golden Triangle the world's largest heroin producer. Through an accident of history, the southern borders of China and the Soviet Union, a major fault line of Cold War confrontation, happened to parallel the Asian opium zone. Since the 18th Century, opium has been cultivated as a cash crop in a highland zone that extends for 5,000 miles across the southern rim of Asia from Turkey to Thailand. During the forty years of the Cold War, the coincidence super power confrontation and opium cultivation made geo-political pressures a real force in shaping the political economy of this zone. As various national intelligence agencies mounted special operations along the Asian zone, they found that the region's opium brokers and ethnic warlords were their most effective covert-action assets. Surveying the steady increase in world opium production since the end of World War II, we can thus discern periodic surges in opium supply that coincide with ethnic conflicts or special operations in the drug zones. The sudden growth of Golden Triangle opium production in the 1950s appears, in retrospect, a response to two stimuli. Reacting to international pressures, governments abolished legal opium sales and thereby created a sudden demand for illicit opiates in the Southeast Asia's cities. Moreover, an informal alliance among four intelligence services--Thai, American, French and Nationalist Chinese--played a catalytic role in promoting the production of opium in northern Laos and the Shan Plateau of northern Burma. In particular, the Nationalist Chinese (Kuomintang, or KMT) occupation in 1950, combined with the Shan secessionist revolt after 1958, transformed the Shan States into a region of conflict that reduced government control and allowed a marked expansion in local opium production. During the First Indochina War (1947-54), French intelligence officers integrated their covert warfare with the Golden Triangle opium trade through a motivation that seems, on its face, simple. Denied funds by National Assembly, French intelligence merged the opium supply of Laos with the drug demand of Saigon to fund covert operations against Vietnam's communists. After the French colonial regime abolished the Opium Monopoly in 1950, military intelligence took control of the drug trade. French paratroopers fighting with Hmong guerrillas in Laos and Tonkin shipped their clients' opium south to Saigon on French military aircraft where it was sold in smoking dens run by the Binh Xuyen bandits, a criminal syndicate that controlled the city. Through this operation, French intelligence, particularly the SDECE, integrated narcotics into Indochina's political economy and its anti-Communist political forces. Across the Mekong in Burma and Thailand, an alliance of intelligence services--Taiwan, Thailand, and US--fought a purer kind of covert warfare by operating indirectly through their local clients. Controlling the opium hills of northeastern Burma, Nationalist Chinese irregulars supplied the demand for drugs in Bangkok. To provide logistic support for their forces, the Nationalists forged a tactical alliance with Thailand's dominant military leader, Police General Phao Sriyanonda, that soon evolved into a de facto division of the Burma-to-Bangkok opium trade. Initially, the Nationalist Chinese forces invaded Yunnan Province in southwest China, seeking to inspire a mass uprising against the new Communist regime. After at least three failed invasions of Yunnan with heavy losses of men and equipment in 1951-1952, the KMT forces fell back into Burma's prime opium lands between the Salween River and the China border--7,300 troops in the Wa States and 4,400 further south in Kengtung State. As allied aid gradually declined, the Chinese KMT irregulars turned to opium trading to finance their operations. Forcing local hill tribes to produce opium through a mix of coercion and market incentives, the Nationalist troops presided over a massive increase of poppy cultivation on the Shan Plateau and sent opium caravans south into Thailand to supply the region's growing illicit markets. After a joint Burma-China military operation evicted them from the Shan States in 1961, the KMT forces established new base camps just across the border in Thailand and from there dominated the Shan States opium trade until the early 1980s. During their decade-long occupation of Burma's prime opium lands between the Salween River and the Chinese border, the KMT fostered a generation of local opium warlords such as Olive Yang, Lo Hsing-han, and Khun Sa who remained in Burma after the KMT departure to struggle, as both antagonists and allies, for control of the local traffic. By the mid 1960s, the high profits of the Shan opium trade financed the formation of new armies, notably Khun Sa's Shan United Army (SUA), that would challenge Nationalist Chinese dominion and expropriate much of the traffic by the late 1970s. Even after the KMT's control faded, opium continued to dominate the region's economy, corrupting all contenders for control of Burma's northeast--Shan rebels, Chinese warlords, the Communist Party of Burma, and Rangoon's military regime. By the mid-1960s, Southeast Asia had a self-contained narcotics industry producing enough raw opium to sustain addicts in the region's cities. Following a pattern seen elsewhere, local demand raised the region's opium harvest to levels sufficient for an eventual entry into the world market, and then sustained it during periodic downturns in global demand. Although Hong Kong's chemists had been producing heroin from Southeast Asian opium since the mid 1950s, heroin laboratories did not open in the Golden Triangle until the US military presence in South Vietnam created a local demand for No. 4 heroin. In 1968-1969, Hong Kong syndicate chemists opened a cluster of heroin laboratories at the epicenter of the Golden Triangle. Controlled by the Nationalist Chinese generals in Thailand and the Commander of the Royal Lao Army, these laboratories produced substantial quantities of 90 percent pure heroin. Fueled by these nearly limitless supplies, heroin use among US troops in South Vietnam reached epidemic proportions. In September 1970, Army medical officers questioned 3,103 soldiers of the American Division and found that 11.9 percent had used heroin since their arrival in Vietnam. In November, an Army Engineers battalion in the Mekong Delta reported that 14 percent of its troops were regular heroin users. In 1972, the White House Office for Drug Abuse Prevention interviewed 900 enlisted men who had returned from Vietnam in September 1971, the peak of the epidemic, and found that 44 percent had tried opiates while in Vietnam and 20 percent regarded themselves as having been addicted. The full extent of the problem was not revealed until 1974 when the Office for Drug Abuse Prevention published later surveys showing that 34 percent of US troops in Vietnam had commonly used heroin. Assuming this figure to be correct, then by mid 1971 there were more American heroin users in South Vietnam (81,300) than there were in the entire United States (68,000). The causes underlying the GI drug epidemic were complex. In retrospect, however, boredom and bad morale provided much of the motivation. Under President Nixon's Vietnamization program launched in 1969, US troops were confined to cantonments as a strategic reserve for ARVN, and most units, without a clear mission, suffered a sharp decline in morale. With days stretching into months without event or ending, soldiers apparently took heroin to dull the psychological pain and accelerate the 365-day clock that marked the maximum tour of each soldier. Not surprisingly, the accelerated withdrawal of U.S. combat forces in 1971-1972 forced Southeast Asian syndicates to seek new markets for their heroin production. Increase/decrease in World Opium Production: --World opium production dropped dramatically from an estimated 16,653 tons in 1934 to only 1,094 tons in 1970. Changes in Opium Cultivation by Region: --During the 1950s, all opium production in China was eradicated, eliminating the producer of 85 percent of total world production in 1906-07. --For the first time, Southeast Asia's Golden Triangle region becomes a significant opium producer--increasing from 15.5 tons in 1940, to 97 tons in 1944, to 713 tons in 1970. By 1970, the Golden Triangle accounts for 67 percent of world illicit opium supply. --In Burma, opium production rose from 8 tons in 1936 to 500 tons in 1970. --In Southwest Asia (Iran, Afghanistan, India, Turkey) opium production dropped from 1,126 tons in 1934 to 381 tons in 1970. --Rising from low, unknown levels, Mexican opium production reached 15 tons in 1970. Changes in Quantity of Opium Consumption by Region: --The US addict population rose from 20,000 in 1945, to 68,000 in 1969, to an estimated 559,000 in 1973. Summary and Analysis of Trends within Epoch: Production Areas: External intervention in the remote tribal areas along the Asian opium zone contributed to the rise of drug lords and their armies, allowing them to position themselves for a massive expansion of local opium production. By providing arms, logistics, organization, and political protection, external alliances created the preconditions for a later leap in opium production in Burma and Afghanistan. Chinese Eradication: During the Cold War era, the most dramatic change was the sudden and complete eradication of opium in China. Under a powerful communist state, perfect prohibition works and produces a major change in the opium trade, eliminating the source of some 85 percent of prewar world supply. This extraordinary event has, however, no real lesson for capitalist democracies struggling with the problem of drug abuse. To extract some tenuous policy prescription from the Chinese Revolution would serve to trivialize a major historical event. Origins of US Bilateral Suppression (1973-1979)As American troops were withdrawing from Vietnam in 1972, President Richard Nixon inadvertently created a new market for Southeast Asian heroin by declaring a war on drugs in the Mediterranean. As the progenitor of the three drug wars the US has fought over the past 20 years, Nixon's effort commands close attention. Despite a short-term victory, there were two long-term consequences of this drug war: Acting on reports that Turkey's poppy fields and France's laboratories supplied 80 percent of America's heroin, Nixon pressed these two allies to eliminate the drug trade. By 1973, Turkey, supported by $35.7 million in U.S. aid, had eradicated all opium production and the French government had closed most of the heroin laboratories in the Marseilles region. Within months, the street price of heroin in New York had tripled and purity dropped by half--both indicators of a serious shortage. Indeed, the DEA estimated that the U.S. addict population dropped from some 500,000 in 1974-1975 to only 200,000 by the end of the decade. Clearly, President Nixon had scored a major victory in his war on drugs. Ironically, President Nixon's victory in Turkey increased global drug demand, unleashing market forces that would ultimately expand both production and consumption of illicit narcotics. The Nixon drug war rested on the premise that Turkey was an isolated opium producer that could be eliminated through a strong enforcement effort. Turkey, in 1970, had produced just 7 percent of the world's illicit supply. It was, moreover, the western extremity of a near continuous opium zone that stretched for 5,000 miles along the mountain rim of Asia--through Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Burma, Thailand, and Laos. Although U.S. officials seemed to view this broad zone as a series of self-contained sectors (Middle East, South West Asia, and Southeast Asia), this functional economic region responded to stimuli from the global drug market with a simultaneity that seems to indicate economic coherence. Any reduction of production in a single sector, such as Turkey, soon became a strong market stimulus for increased production elsewhere along the opium zone. Reacting to the decline in heroin shipments from the Mediterranean, the Chinese syndicates of Southeast Asia began exporting their surplus heroin to America, in effect following the GIs home. Rising from insignificant levels in the late 1960s, Southeast Asian heroin captured 29 percent of New York's street supply by 1972. In Chicago, Southeast Asia's share jumped from 6 percent of all samples seized in 1972 to 48 percent in 1973. A wave of arrests of Chinese merchant seamen jumping ship on the East Coast in 1972 signaled an upsurge of Asian heroin smuggling. During the early 1970s, Southeast Asia's share of the overall U.S. heroin market reached an estimated 26 to 30 percent of total street supply. Concerned about rising Southeast Asian heroin seizures, the Nixon administration dispatched a fire-break team of 30 Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents to Bangkok in 1973-1974 to cut the flow. Armed with a financial war chest that included $12 million in narcotics assistance funds, the Bangkok DEA seconded a branch of the Thai police to its service and soon began making substantial seizures of US-bound heroin. By 1976, Southeast Asian heroin dropped from a peak of 30 percent to about 8 percent of the total seized on the streets of American cities. Moreover, the DEA presence contributed to the elimination of several leading exporters of Southeast Asia opiates. In 1973, the Marcos regime executed a Manila heroin manufacturer, Lim Seng, who was exporting major quantities to the United States. In 1974, Hong Kong Police broke the Ng Sik-ho syndicate, disrupting the colony's export operations. As Southeast Asian exports dropped, Mexico's share of the US market jumped from 40 percent in 1972 to 90 percent in 1975. Since the DEA did not eradicate opium cultivation on the Shan Plateau or close the heroin refineries in northern Thailand, its seizures simply erected a de-facto Custom's shield that deflected exports from the United States to other markets. If the region's loosely structured opium industry were instead a legal corporation, then the import duties it was required to pay for access to key markets were, in effect, becoming prohibitive. Barred from the prime US drug market, Southeast Asia's syndicates were forced to find new markets or go out of business. There are, of course, only four First World regions capable of sustaining the high costs of the transnational heroin trade--America, Japan, Europe and Australia. Denied access to the United States by DEA operations and barred from Japan by an entente between the state and syndicates that discouraged narcotics, Southeast Asian syndicates began exporting heroin to Europe and Australia. During the 1970s, police statistics from both continents indicated a parallel surge in illicit heroin use. Total European seizures of Southeast Asian No. 3 heroin jumped from 22 pounds in 1972 to 873 in 1978. By 1976, European seizures of 1,177 pounds of heroin, almost all from Southeast Asia, were higher than the U.S. total for all source countries. Indicative of Europe's rising addiction rates, the Netherlands' addict population increased from 100 in 1970 to 10,000 by 1975. In West Germany, deaths from heroin overdose increased from 9 in 1969 to 623 a decade later. By the end of the decade, Europe was, for the first time in its history, consuming more heroin than the United States. Similarly, in Australia narcotics arrests in the state of New South Wales increased five-fold from 173 in 1972 to 909 in 1977; while over-dose deaths were up three-fold from 14 in 1974 to 49 in 1976. Although Nixon's drug war thus stimulated the global market, its impact on US domestic supply was more ambiguous. In the late 1970s every indicator--addiction, purity, and price--pointed to a decline in America's heroin supply. Why? Did Nixon's drug war succeed in slowing the flow of drugs into the United States? Mexico had captured nearly 90 percent of the US heroin market, but its granular No. 3 heroin failed to satisfy American demand for the No. 4 powder processed in Europe and Southeast Asia. In the mid 1970s, as Turkish supplies dwindled and Southeast Asia failed to fill the void, Mexico's production boomed and its Sierra Madre became America's major source of heroin. Although Mexican opium cultivation had been extremely low and supplied a tiny slice of the U.S. heroin market in the 1950s, a quarter century later Mexico's expanded poppy cultivation supplied almost the entire US market. Mexico's dominance of the U.S. supply with low-grade No. 3 heroin coincided with a marked decline in U.S. heroin demand during the mid-1970s, providing some hope that this bilateral approach might have been effective. As U.S. enforcement efforts took effect and the drug flow from Mexico began to slow in the late 1970s, unmet U.S. demand for drugs stimulated renewed Southeast Asian exports that briefly captured about one-third of the American market. Even so, supplies of heroin from all sources were still limited, and US consumption, by all indicators, remained low. Looking at these changes, we could conclude that Nixon's drug war had actually worked. Examining other evidence, however, we could attribute this decline to President Carter's foreign policy. His cessation of covert operations from 1976 to 1978 may have removed, albeit inadvertently, the protection that drug lords seem to require. Similarly, Carter's abandonment of the Nixon drug war strategy might have stalled the bilateral operations that had in the past stimulated production. Complicating the situation further, Southeast Asia, the world's major opium producer, suffered a major drought in 1978 to 1980 that slashed its opium production by more than 75 percent. Given the complexities of the global drug trade, we cannot decide this issue with absolute certainty. Whatever the complex causality underlying the decline in US heroin consumption in the late 1970s might have been, a close review of the global traffic indicates that prohibition and protection were, on balance, the operative factors in a sudden revival of heroin abuse during the 1980s. Causality underlying above changes: When President Nixon launched America's first drug war in Asia and brought the blunt baton of law enforcement down on a global commodity, heroin, the results were mixed. Although repression disrupted the global heroin trade for several years, over the longer term Nixon's drug war stimulated both global opium production and heroin consumption. Ignoring these lessons, the Reagan and Bush administrations later pursued parallel policies in Latin America with dismal results. In essence, all three drug wars extended a local law enforcement model into the international arena in a way that failed to reduce either drug production or exports. Like heroin before it, cocaine grew during the 1980s into a major commodity that was fully, albeit invisibly, integrated into legitimate inter-American economic relations. Despite Washington's drug wars, U.S. consumption fueled an increase in coca cultivation-- rising in Bolivia from 4,800 metric tons in 1963 to some 56,400 to 155,452 tons in 1988. Stimulated in part by three US drug wars, Asian opium production enjoyed a parallel increase from 1,094 tons in 1970 to 4,016 tons in 1989. How can we explain the failure of a major US foreign policy initiative? It appears that the policy of repression is based on a misperception of the nature of the global narcotics traffic. White House policy has ignored the market dynamics of the global drug trade. Since the late 18th century, narcotics have emerged as a major commodity with Third World producers and First World consumers linked in an elaborate exchange. The initial prohibition of narcotics during the 1920s did not eradicate the trade, but simply drove it into an illicit economy controlled by upland drug lords and urban crime syndicates. When law enforcement is applied to such an elaborate commerce, drug syndicates usually react in ways not foreseen by enforcement agencies. Treating the global narcotics traffic as if it were a localized vice such as pornography or prostitution, U.S. drug agencies often apply repression without any awareness of the intricate dynamics of these worldwide marketing systems. For both legal and illicit commodities, a crop failure in one production zone--whether from war, drought, or disease--creates a shortage of supply and raises the price for producers elsewhere, stimulating increased production in the next crop cycle. Increase/decrease in World Opium Production: --World opium production increased steadily from in 1,094 tons in 1970 to 1,450 tons in 1981. Changes in Opium Cultivation by Region: --Turkish illicit opium production declined radically from 58 tons in 1971 to zero by 1974-75. --In Southwest Asia (Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan), opium production rose from 504 tons in 1971 to an estimated 1,400 tons in 1978. --In Southeast Asia's Golden Triangle, drought cut opium production from 700 tons in 1971 to only 160 tons in 1979. --Mexican opium production remains relatively constant at 16 tons in both 1971 and 1981. Changes in Quantity of Opium Consumption by Region: --In the United States, estimated number of heroin addicts declined sharply from an estimated 500,000 in 1971 to 200,000 in 1979. --Rising from low levels in 1970, Western Europe had an estimated 190,000 to 330,000 heroin addicts in 1979-80. --In the Netherlands, estimated number of heroin addicts grew from 100 in 1970 to 10,000 in 1975. --In West Germany, heroin overdose deaths increased from 9 in 1969 to 623 in 1979. Summary and Analysis of Trends within Epoch: Bilateral Suppression & Crime: During the mid 1970s, the US attempt at bilateral suppression of opiates Limits of Bilateral Suppression: Although bilateral operations in Turkey during the mid 1970s represent the greatest success of any US drug war, the policy implications are limited. In retrospect, Turkey's suppression worked because, like Iran or British India before World War II, the government licensed and controlled opium cultivation. Moreover, the opium farmers were ethnic Turks, the majority population, working at the epicenter of the nation-state, not an alienated ethnic minority, armed and insurgent. This combination of a strong state and weak local resistance made this exercise in bilateral suppression effective. These conditions are not, however, likely to be replicated anywhere else in the world. Similarly, the strong French state could eliminate the Corsican laboratories in Marseilles when US pressure was insistent. Elsewhere--in Burma, Afghanistan, or Pakistan--the state is weak and ethnic resistance to opium eradication is strong, making future bilateral operations in these critical areas problematic. Books Opium: A HistoryTraces opium's history from the first evidence of poppy cultivation (possibly as early as 4,000 B.C.) to the drug wars of today. Explores its uses in different cultures, its roles in British and Chinese political affairs, its use by artists and musicians, and its horrifying ramifications for addicts. Written with admirable attention to detail. Informative book details opium and its derivatives such as morphine and heroin. It is fascinating to learn about the effect this drug has had on various cultures such as China and India. Anyone wanting to obtain information for academic purposes or just to learn more about this drug will enjoy this book. Opium: A HistoryOpium: |
